Why is it that xians (not saying Kevin is one, I dunno, he just sparked this thought) are CONSTANTLY asking why we (that is, non- or ex-xians) do things? "Why are you here? (ie on this forum)", "Why do you google these sites?", etc etc etc.

In my opinion, it's a form "gatekeeper" mentality - "HALT, who goes there?", that sort of thing. That's certainly how it often comes across.

Wait... there was actually something controversial about saying Jesus did not use a bible that didn't exist and in a language that didn't exist at the time containing scriptures that didn't exist until decades after his purported death?

I know many Christians who would be disgusted by that website. To be fair, I don't think all Christians should be categorized under the fundamentalist agenda, but I do agree with you that the fundies are irrational and incoherent. I think the emergent church movement is a better representation of Christianity, however, they are Fideist, which means they hold faith at a higher value over reason. They are okay with the problem passages in the Bible and not having solid historical evidence to support the reliability of Scripture. It is amazing how many base their faith on emotional appeal far and above reason.

I am a former fundamentalist myself. This goes hand-in-hand with my Bob Jones University days.

KH> I hate to say it, because it is ultimately the Genetic Fallacy, but that's why you are an ex-Christian or atheist.

I don't blame you. I don't question your motives nor sincerity.

By the grace of God, I managed to survive the baggage. For some reason, you didn't.

When I began to have questions at 17, I picked up a book on Christian evidences by sheer "accident". It transformed me.

When I was maligned for my hair and guitar, I ran into Mark Heard and Phil Keaggy (personally).

When I struggled with whether to listen to this music or that, or whether dancing was okay, or wine...I was hit in the head with Romans 14 and understood it for the first time.

When I was frustrated by always "finding the will of God" for every decision, I picked up the one book, out of dozens in the bookstore on the subject, that set me free. Gary Friesen's Decision Making and the Will of God. It got me off a treadmill from hell - false notions about reading into everything some sign from God about what shoes to wear or whatever!

When I struggled in my 20's to be an effective witness for Christ, presenting an intelligent case for his claims, a very busy Norman Geisler took me under his wing.

I could go on. God has been faithful to me at every point in my life with perfect timing, answers, people, and encouragement.

I think the emergent church movement is a better representation of Christianity, however, they are Fideist, which means they hold faith at a higher value over reason.

KH> Regretfully, I think the Emergent Church exists because of the stuff in the website Harry showed us.

They do many things right (authenticity, relevance, relationship, missions).

And you pointed out some of the things wrong. They often do apologetics against apologetics and offer reasons for why we don't need reasons.

They think the "conversation never ends" but use that philosophy as a conversation ender!

They think Postmodernism is the reigning paradigm but it really isn't. It was a false alarm as far as wide-spread influence (it only really effected literature studies). Therefore, they are very relativistic with a poor definition of truth.

Sadly, despite their cool glasses and haircuts, they are a mess of Self Refutation.

actually, this is exactly what i think "christianity" is. it's why i'm not one.

i've been seeing web sites like this - and talking to people who say this kind of thing - almost ever since i was born, which is one of the reasons why i believe that i was adopted from outer space, or something like that, because to me it's all so moronic.

The upside down cross is symbolic of Peter who was reputedly crucified upside down (by request (the upside down part, not the crucification)) and symbolizes the RC church's continuity with Peter.

And the KJV is generally considered by scholars to be a rather poor translation from a second rate Greek version with a lot of theo-political slant, badly chosen wording (unicorns & dragons f'rinstance).

No, David J. Stewart is quite serious. I first discovered his site back in 2007, and it's fascinated me ever since. I periodically check for his updates. He really believes he's doing the Lord's work. Check out his other site.

If Christianity is true, or, as Reppert puts it "The world just makes more sense from the perspective of Christian theism than it does from any other perspective" why does it inspire such insanity? Is there anything equivalent on the atheist, naturalist side that reaches such heights of kookery? I don't think there is or can be, which says something, I think, about the general insanity of religion.

Your criteria is if all the scholars say something its a fact. It doesn't matter what the evidence is or what the historical method says about that evidence, as long as the scholars say something you believe them.

I don't doubt that you see the events you have mentioned as specific attempts by God to help you in your daily life. I've experienced times like that as well, as have probably many others here. But the problem is that it's all subjective. A person who believed in horoscopes could say the same thing - their stars were looking out for them. Muslims would say that Allah guides and directs them. New Agers can talk about cosmic forces (or whatever the hell they talk about). They're all just frameworks for organizing random events - but they can't all be right. So how do you know that God has truly been faithful to you?

"I could go on. God has been faithful to me at every point in my life with perfect timing, answers, people, and encouragement."

I know you didn't mean it this way, but as an ex-Christian I could take offence to this. Without doing so, however, I want to ask why, when you asked (or when you didn't), God gave you answers and encouragement, and yet he left us former Christians in the dark when we begged him for answers. Why did you get a response and we didn't? I know that you might have an answer to that question, but I'd challenge you to think twice about it - because I would say that no answer to that question involving a loving God is justifiable.

Your criteria is if all the scholars say something its a fact. It doesn't matter what the evidence is or what the historical method says about that evidence, as long as the scholars say something you believe them.

KH> Xianzai, I hope you post here often. You are a thoughtful person.

We stand on the shoulders of giants. We can look into what scholars and specialists in a given field have to say about a related topic.

Understanding or quoting them accurately only serves to add weight to the evidence of a given case. If we see a majority consensus, that adds more weight to the evidence. Hope the clears it up.

I want to ask why, when you asked (or when you didn't), God gave you answers and encouragement, and yet he left us former Christians in the dark when we begged him for answers. Why did you get a response and we didn't?

Jeff,

It is a question internal to biblical theology, so I can only speculate according to the biblical data.

Internally, there seems to be only three answers (and I know most on DC know this):

1). A person gets caught up in the religious fervor or noise and fury of Christendom, yet never receives Christ.

2). A person does receive Christ yet falls into a condition of dis-fellowship with God and either dies in that condition (remains saved but bad news at the Judgement Seat of Christ) or is restored by the grace and activity of the Holy Spirit.

3). The doctrine of Eternal Security is mistaken and a person can genuinely lose his salvation.

FWIW, I don't think #3 is a good option. It's too problematic scripturally.

Therefore, #1 or #2, yet there's no way I can accurately tell you which applies to you. That is your call, I can only offer insight.

Remember, whether Christianity is true is an external question. We are looking at an internal question.

The No True Scotsman Fallacy does not apply to whether someone is truly a Christian. Because, there is no standard for whether one should "drink milk with porridge", but there is a standard for a true Christian (the Scriptures).

The things I recounted happened to me objectively even if I interepreted them subjectively. They are my testimony. As such, I can only offer it for consideration like anyone else.

Here are some suggested questions to ask one's self (away from any debate forum):

How exactly is God supposed to communicate his love and plan for me?

In what ways is God obligated to do this (if at all)?

What would be personally convincing for me?

Why did Christ say humility was required in order for anyone to receive anything from God (Matthew 18:4)?

Kevin, I think you missed the point of what I was asking. Perhaps I wasn't clear about it, but my question is this (in its distilled form):

Given that a) God is "all-loving", meaning that in every situation he will pick the most loving option, and "all-powerful", meaning that he has unlimited power at his disposal, and given that b) according to the Bible, the most important piece of knowledge that a person can have is the answer to the question, "How do I attain salvation?":

Then why does God not communicate the answer to this question, in an equally convincing way, to all people in all places and all times? Why do some get the Bible translated in their language, some get miracles, and some get brought up in a Christian environment, but not others?

It doesn't matter whether I'm a "true Christian" or not, really. I mean, you'd think that God would at least be more loving toward his "children," but that is really beside the point, I suppose. Ultimately, I think it comes down to the fact that if God really wanted everyone to be saved, he'd figure out a way to convince everyone. Without conflicting with our precious free will, of course...

"I want to ask why, when you asked (or when you didn't), God gave you answers and encouragement, and yet he left us former Christians in the dark when we begged him for answers. Why did you get a response and we didn't?"

You elaborated:

"Given that a) God is "all-loving", meaning that in every situation he will pick the most loving option, and "all-powerful", meaning that he has unlimited power at his disposal..."

KH> Good. Right there I want to expand. I think God's actualizing the most loving option means he will bring as many people freely into relationship with himself as is possible.

God's omnipotence extends only to what is actually possible or feasible for God (omnipotence does not extend to contradictions or logical absurdities, i.e. square circles).

"...and given that b) according to the Bible, the most important piece of knowledge that a person can have is the answer to the question, 'How do I attain salvation?': Then why does God not communicate the answer to this question, in an equally convincing way, to all people in all places and all times? Why do some get the Bible translated in their language, some get miracles, and some get brought up in a Christian environment, but not others?"

KH> It's a good question and I asked you how you think God should do that, but I want you to notice something. Notice that you got all that! You were privy to a Christian environment, teaching, resources, books, and time to contemplate it! So let's talk about you and your responsibilities, not everyone else whom God is apparently, according to you, not bothering with!

God has actualized a world in which as many people as possible will come freely into relationship with him. He does not desire that we merely know he exists, but that we seek him, know him, and love him. God desires filial relationship with us, not mere acknowledgment of his existence.

God reveals himself to all people Generally (in nature, intuition, etc.) and Specially (the Scriptures, and in Jesus of Nazareth, etc.). Those who respond to General Revelation will get more. Those who continually turn away will get less.

1). A person gets caught up in the religious fervor or noise and fury of Christendom, yet never receives Christ.

This is an enormous problem for Christianity, because it means that someone can confess Jesus as their savior, truly believe in his sacrifice on the cross, follow the Biblical guidelines for his entire life, and yet still go to Hell because Jesus never "came into his heart."

At some point, Jesus has to come into the picture, and if the individual does his part (i.e. confessing and doing everything they can to believe) and Jesus doesn't show up, then who is responsible?

In case you missed it, go back to that site and read the part about how they view feminism. Did you know, "Biblically, a woman's place is in the home"? It gets worse. If you know a woman fundy, you should send her the link directly to that page so she know what her church really thinks of her. And for those who wonder why atheists keep on these topic? Because people who hold beliefs like this vote too and they want to worm their way into government power in order to make laws more friendly to their ways. If enough of them got in power, women's rights would become in serious jeopardy. It is their influence that has so crippled gay rights. They keep trying to creep influence into schools via 'moment of silence' which is watered down school prayer and via 'intelligent design' which is creationism which is not science but religion, but they fool enough people now and then to win. vigilence is called for against them.

This is an enormous problem for Christianity, because it means that someone can confess Jesus as their savior, truly believe in his sacrifice on the cross, follow the Biblical guidelines for his entire life, and yet still go to Hell because Jesus never "came into his heart."

What's enormous is the burden of proof someone has who claims that ever happens!